Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
davieG

Premier League 2014/15 Stuff it in here.

Recommended Posts

Just watched that Matic red card.

Can't believe anybody is defending Barnes there, that's not a follow through, he's passed the ball and then basically stamped on Matic's leg.

If that's a legitimate follow-through you'd see that sort of thing happen 10 times a match. It doesn't happen 10 times a match because it's not a natural thing to do at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched that Matic red card.

Can't believe anybody is defending Barnes there, that's not a follow through, he's passed the ball and then basically stamped on Matic's leg.

If that's a legitimate follow-through you'd see that sort of thing happen 10 times a match. It doesn't happen 10 times a match because it's not a natural thing to do at all.

See this is exactly why you're the keeper in my favourite poster eleven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kane is the luckiest footballer alive.

 

 

He has earned his luck through hard work.

 

 

His goals against Chelsea and arsenal were quality. Today he got a bit of luck...in the future he will have a day like lukaku today missing 5-6 golden chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched that Matic red card.

Can't believe anybody is defending Barnes there, that's not a follow through, he's passed the ball and then basically stamped on Matic's leg.

If that's a legitimate follow-through you'd see that sort of thing happen 10 times a match. It doesn't happen 10 times a match because it's not a natural thing to do at all.

At the moment Barnes played the ball, Matic was a yard away and closing fast.  Matic's stride and Barnes' follow through coincided.  Barnes did not follow through with all his weight, he stopped (as the stills show) just in time that his weight caused Matic's leg to bend the wrong way, but before it bent far enough to cause any damage; then he backed off.  If he'd followed through, Matic wouldn't have been able to assault him from behind in the true Chelsea manner that he did.

 

If you time the length of time it took between when Barnes kicked the ball and when he drew back his weight, I bet you'll not be far away from the standard time they allow Olympic sprinters to hear the gun.  Reaction time isn't instant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did you make of the first Barnes incident with Ivanovic?

Barnes could have been booked, because he jumped into him.  But Ivanovic wasn't hurt, so it's a non-incident - or it would have been if either Ivanovic or Mourinho had the maturity my young nephew would have shown in the same circumstance.

 

I've never heard a scream of pain like Ivanovic gave on any football field.  Not even from a man who was hurt.  Ivanovic wouldn't have rolled over three times if he even thought he was hurt, and he was fit and able to get up and go whingeing to the ref a second afterwards.  Anyone who's ever had a baby brother or sister will recognise it - "Mum, he pushed me, waaaahhhh, not fair, make him leave me alone".  He's a big baby.

 

Mourinho suggested it was a sending off offence.  Whether he believes it or whether he is just stirring the pot to detract from his own team's failings, the man is an idiot.  I will never again (not that I ever did) insult Sean Dyche with the term "Ginger Mourinho".  (Not unless I really fall out with him!)

 

Sorry for the rant, but you did ask! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment Barnes played the ball, Matic was a yard away and closing fast. Matic's stride and Barnes' follow through coincided. Barnes did not follow through with all his weight, he stopped (as the stills show) just in time that his weight caused Matic's leg to bend the wrong way, but before it bent far enough to cause any damage; then he backed off. If he'd followed through, Matic wouldn't have been able to assault him from behind in the true Chelsea manner that he did.

If you time the length of time it took between when Barnes kicked the ball and when he drew back his weight, I bet you'll not be far away from the standard time they allow Olympic sprinters to hear the gun. Reaction time isn't instant.

Absolute drivel.

I watched our game earlier on where (like every game) there were a few incidents whereby a pass was made and the defender arrived a split second later.

Surprise, surprise, nobody nearly ended up with their leg broken.

Also why do Barnes' studs end up in Matic's leg if it's just a follow through? Surely it would just be the side of his boot if it was just innocent.

And why, with a gentle pass, does his follow through involve his foot ending up just below knee-height?

And you think Barnes doesn't have the reaction time to get his leg away before making contact but does manage to think "oh shit there's been a terrible accident here" and then get it away in the split second between leg breaker and non-leg breaker territory? How on earth does that make sense?

It was an atrocious challenge and not his first of the game either. The one on Ivanovic was over knee height ffs - if that's not endangering the safety of an opponent then I don't know what is.

I hate Mourinho's drivel about this "conspiracy" but the refereeing yesterday was atrocious and so was Barnes' behaviour.

Barnes could have been booked, because he jumped into him. But Ivanovic wasn't hurt, so it's a non-incident - or it would have been if either Ivanovic or Mourinho had the maturity my young nephew would have shown in the same circumstance.

I've never heard a scream of pain like Ivanovic gave on any football field. Not even from a man who was hurt. Ivanovic wouldn't have rolled over three times if he even thought he was hurt, and he was fit and able to get up and go whingeing to the ref a second afterwards. Anyone who's ever had a baby brother or sister will recognise it - "Mum, he pushed me, waaaahhhh, not fair, make him leave me alone". He's a big baby.

Mourinho suggested it was a sending off offence. Whether he believes it or whether he is just stirring the pot to detract from his own team's failings, the man is an idiot. I will never again (not that I ever did) insult Sean Dyche with the term "Ginger Mourinho". (Not unless I really fall out with him!)

Sorry for the rant, but you did ask! ;)

Ivanovic making a meal of it doesn't make it any less of a terrible challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also why do Barnes' studs end up in Matic's leg if it's just a follow through? Surely it would just be the side of his boot if it was just innocent.

And why, with a gentle pass, does his follow through involve his foot ending up just below knee-height?

And you think Barnes doesn't have the reaction time to get his leg away before making contact but does manage to think "oh shit there's been a terrible accident here" and then get it away in the split second between leg breaker and non-leg breaker territory? How on earth does that make sense?

When you play a side footed pass, you hit the ball with the side of your foot, but you don't land on the side of your foot.  You land on your studs.

 

As for why Barnes' follow-through goes so high, ask the fellow he was assaulting here.  (The foot is raised in exactly the same way.)2rvzj4g.jpgAs for reaction time, there must be an exact moment when your reaction kicks in.  For the Olympic games, it's considered to be 0.1 seconds - anyone who starts in less than 0.1 seconds after the gun is deemed to have false started, because it isn't physically possible to react that fast.  Obviously reacting to an unexpected event, like a knee appearing under your foot, would take longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you play a side footed pass, you hit the ball with the side of your foot, but you don't land on the side of your foot. You land on your studs.

As for why Barnes' follow-through goes so high, ask the fellow he was assaulting here. (The foot is raised in exactly the same way.)2rvzj4g.jpgAs for reaction time, there must be an exact moment when your reaction kicks in. For the Olympic games, it's considered to be 0.1 seconds - anyone who starts in less than 0.1 seconds after the gun is deemed to have false started, because it isn't physically possible to react that fast. Obviously reacting to an unexpected event, like a knee appearing under your foot, would take longer.

When you play a side footed pass you land on your studs, you're right. But you land on your studs on the ground, which last time I checked was pretty much at a right angle to somebody's standing leg, which is where Barnes' studs landed.

So how did St Ashley manage to get his foot out of the way just in time to avoid it turning into a leg breaker? Sounds to me from your theory that actually Barnes (who had already recklessly endangered the safety of an opponent once in the game) actually deserves credit for NOT breaking Matic's leg. Like a drunk driver deserves credit for not going over the speed limit when they hit somebody.

And why do we never ever ever see similar incidents? I must have watched literally thousands of football matches and have never once seen a pass result in somebody planting their studs in somebody's knee.

As for the picture of Matic - is he completing a 5 yard pass there? Or is he actually playing - 40 yard through ball? We don't know, but we do know that Barnes played a 5-10 yard pass. And why, if he's just interested in making the pass, has he managed to execute it in such a manner that his studs are up after playing it? When being closed rapidly most players are interested in getting a toe on the ball to find a team mate (Matic is under no pressure in the picture you've shown).

I can't believe anybody is defending this. It's a disgusting, cowardly bit of play which could have put Matic's career at the top level in danger. Coming half an hour after the assault on Ivanovic it beggars belief that anybody would think that it was an accident.

Sorry, I don't mean to have a go at you or Burnley or Barnes in particular but if there's one thing I can't stand it's players deliberately endangering their opponents' safety. We see way too much of it in a snide way in football - strikers leaving their feet in on goalkeepers, two footed tackles etc. and it's a total joke that you can stay on the pitch for sticking your studs in the leg of an opponent above the ankle (at speed) twice in one game.

Meanwhile players get sent off routinely for "raising their hands" (look at Barton yesterday for goodness sake - sent off for sort of flicking at Huddlestone's waist) and behaviour that is seriously dangerous is just glossed over by fans because he happens to wear your team's shirt (and I may be just as bad).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you play a side footed pass you land on your studs, you're right. But you land on your studs on the ground, which last time I checked was pretty much at a right angle to somebody's standing leg, which is where Barnes' studs landed.

So how did St Ashley manage to get his foot out of the way just in time to avoid it turning into a leg breaker? Sounds to me from your theory that actually Barnes (who had already recklessly endangered the safety of an opponent once in the game) actually deserves credit for NOT breaking Matic's leg. Like a drunk driver deserves credit for not going over the speed limit when they hit somebody.

And why do we never ever ever see similar incidents? I must have watched literally thousands of football matches and have never once seen a pass result in somebody planting their studs in somebody's knee.

As for the picture of Matic - is he completing a 5 yard pass there? Or is he actually playing - 40 yard through ball? We don't know, but we do know that Barnes played a 5-10 yard pass. And why, if he's just interested in making the pass, has he managed to execute it in such a manner that his studs are up after playing it? When being closed rapidly most players are interested in getting a toe on the ball to find a team mate (Matic is under no pressure in the picture you've shown).

I can't believe anybody is defending this. It's a disgusting, cowardly bit of play which could have put Matic's career at the top level in danger. Coming half an hour after the assault on Ivanovic it beggars belief that anybody would think that it was an accident.

Sorry, I don't mean to have a go at you or Burnley or Barnes in particular but if there's one thing I can't stand it's players deliberately endangering their opponents' safety. We see way too much of it in a snide way in football - strikers leaving their feet in on goalkeepers, two footed tackles etc. and it's a total joke that you can stay on the pitch for sticking your studs in the leg of an opponent above the ankle (at speed) twice in one game.

Meanwhile players get sent off routinely for "raising their hands" (look at Barton yesterday for goodness sake - sent off for sort of flicking at Huddlestone's waist) and behaviour that is seriously dangerous is just glossed over by fans because he happens to wear your team's shirt (and I may be just as bad).

Last time I checked Matic's leg wasn't replacing ground in this situation. If you're referring to the point when his foot would ground as the point in which he caught Matic, you're wrong seeing as his foot was a good foot away from being grounded at the point of impact, hence why it was seen as high. You've been shown a picture (of Matic oddly enough) showing the position of a foot when following through on a pass. Put a leg in that picture and you have the same situation as yesterday. You refer to the distance Barnes plays the ball compared to how far Matic might be in that picture. Well I made a point of watching a close up of Markovic passing the ball a few yards to Courtinho for the goal today, and exactly the same motion was made as Barnes.

A few people, yourself included have asked why this doesn't happen every week. Well because people don't often make a challenge as late a Matic did. He was very late in trying to nick the ball, and because he was a bit away from Barnes rather than nicking it off his toe, he got caught by the follow through. It was a very unfortunate and very unlucky situation, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think it looked an unnatural follow through. The ref gave the benefit of the doubt. That means he was either correct or it's a great foul. Matic was incensed and gets sent off. Chelsea were hard done by. Blatant handball penalty not given and probably a push on Costa but Costa is like the boy who cried wolf. Barnes should have had at least a yellow maybe straight red for the challenge on Ivanovic too. No logical reason to raise his studs there other than to kick his opponent.

 

All in all a lucky day for Burnley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...